Utter Fergie

Just for you, Eric,

http://outrage.org.uk/

Fill yer boots.

 

To be far, they're hardly hand picked as they are simply the officials involved. Quite naturally it is their statement that will be requested.

The fact Ferguson commented has been covered though, he was involved in that game and just answered a question at his Friday press conference.
He possibly should not have suggested quite so adamantly that Clattenberg hadn't said it but given the information filtering out and back tracking that has been done I think the truth is we agree with him.

I do. I honestly, hand on heart can not see a referee in the current climate racially abusing a player, it would be madness.

 

Is this not (despite what may be the end result) being handled by the police ?

If so; are these two not coming close to the edge of interfering with a police enquiry? As one of the Mancs said, Fergie is seen as important & his opinion matters. It might have been a match his team were at but he did not overhear the convo's.

Enough of the conspiracy stuff but Manc's you have to admit he &wenger should have just said "I'm not going to comment further than to say it is being investigated by the proper authorities". They may not be responsible for the questions put to them but they are responsible for their answers. And those answers given could be perceived as prejudicial even if in fact they are not.

 

How do you know of this threads very existence? I don't have a clue as to any thread on the manc forum, you could be (and probably are) obsessing about every last aspect of our great club, but I wouldn't know, as I have no reason to venture over to your slummy part of the web. So, good sir, how do you know this thread exists?

Is the answer:

A. I'm a hypocrite
B. I'm a hypocrite
C. I'm a hypocrite
D. I'm full of **** and a hypocrite

 

Mikel...
**** me..Are you as stupid as them lot in London?

 

@ both comments

 

RDM's response to Fergie.

Chelsea manager Roberto Di Matteo reacts to Sir Alex Ferguson saying he does not believe referee Mark Clattenburg used "inappropriate language" towards Blues player John Mikel Obi.
"It's a free country and everybody can say what they want," says Di Matteo. "He likes to talk about other clubs. We tend not to."


Bit tame.

 

What else can he say?

Everyone has been commenting: warnock, Wenger, Alladyce, Fergsuon. This is a serious issue and if asked a question they give their own opinion. Nothing wrong or controversial in that

 

Not really. It is being handled by the police, but that puts no onus on any individual not to have an opinion. Otherwise you could argue anyone talking to the press and claiming a friend or relative is innocent is interfering with the inquiry. SAF may have some pull on the back pages, but there is zero chance his opinion would influence a judge or jury - people would be as likely to see them as negative if they hate Utd.

If SAF had said "I know people in the FA who are involved in this inquiry and have told me that the evidence shows Chelsea players were lying" then he would be crossing the line. But fundamental freedom of speech gives everyone the right to an opinion.

Perhaps, but then I doubt most people would think (or care) what people will perceive of their opinions or comments. You'd have pretty boring interviews if every manager refused to answer any question that could relate to anything sensitive or in any way prejudicial. You could extend the same argument to talking about your opponents, refereeing decisions etc etc.

 

My understanding is that it is only when someone is arrested and charged and going to appear in court that the media is not supposed to comment on guilt or not. During an investigation, lost of people make comments. E.g the cases linked to Savile.

 

He say's whilst answering a question on the United manager

Surely by his policy his answer should have been 'no comment'.

 

Well if the FA use the approach they used on Terry and Suarez, Clattenburg ''probably'' did abuse the players. Its one word against the other. How much evidence is there? Not that it really matters, as it didn't in the Suarez case.

 

He could have just said 'we don't talk about other clubs'

If this was the other way round you tin foil hat wearing wierdos would be all over it like a tramp on chips.

 

A referee probably abused the players? Dont think so. Terry and Suarez admitted saying the incriminating words. The ref didn't admit to anything. Massive difference

 

Cool story bro

 

Ferguson being as wily as ever. Supporting Clattenberg & thus referees in general, thus no doubt thinking this may curry favour & at the same time casting aspersions over the club he no doubt considers his greatest threat this season.

Transparent but effective

 

The referee doesn't have to admit to anything. Its one word against the other like in the Suarez case, Suarez said he said it once in response to being abused by Evra which Evra admitted to. Evra said he heard Suarez say something anything between 5 and 200 times, based on the number of times he changed his evidence.

 

If Suarez admitted to saying it once or 5 million times, what difference does it make ? He still said it.

However by your logic .... Admitting it = no evidence

Welcome back KPR

 

Lets look at this realistically.
Evra made a nasty comment about Suarez, Suarez responded by calling Evra ''black'' not N****r or negro, just ''black'' calling someone that is black, ''black'' is just stating the obvious, its like calling Wayne Rooney and Frank Lampard fat or David Beckham and Jason McAteer stupid or Paul Merson a junkie. Suarez did not increase it by using swear words like Terry did. He used the word ''black'' without saying you effing black c u next tuesday.

 

At least Suarez said he said it once. Terry said in a court of law he said the words. The ref didn't admit to anything so it is going to be his word against another so likely no verdict